There is little sign that America's key allies in this fight are paying attention to all of the elements of President Obama's multifaceted approach to countering violent extremism. The forthcoming Arab Summit will further expose these differences. That can only undermine the effectiveness of multilateral cooperation against ISIL.

By degrading and undermining the Houthis' military capabilities, the Saudi-led military efforts serve as a preemptive campaign against the possible use of ballistic missiles, such as SKUD, which could target GCC countries.

Which way, then, for the Saudi-Wahhabi partnership? Will the rulers of Riyadh continue to celebrate figures like Zakir Naik, who instill contempt for others, Muslim and non-Muslim, or will they protect their Islamic cultural legacy while embracing new advances in science?

The March 31st negotiating deadline with Iran over limiting its nuclear programs is upon us. Even if a further extension follows, which is likely, suppose at some future point these negotiations ultimately fail. What options are left?

The U.S. needs to use the next 10 years to build assurance of peaceful relations with Iran. Furthermore, the U.S. must work diligently in support of the normalization of Iran's relations globally and, especially, in the region.

ISIS yesterday destroyed an ancient Christian monastery which has been described as the equivalent of Canterbury Cathedral. Just weeks earlier, it raided Mosul Museum and filmed themselves destroying all the relics on show, including priceless, irreplaceable Assyrian statues.

Iran's crackdown earlier this month on the protesting soccer fans was as much in line with its intolerance toward expressions of anti-government sentiment as it was a response to references to Ahwaz in Saudi media as Arab territory.

American foreign policy is controlled by fools. What else can one conclude from the bipartisan demand that the U.S. intervene everywhere all the time, irrespective of consequences? No matter how disastrous the outcome, the War Lobby insists that the idea was sound. Any problems obviously result, it is claimed, from execution, a matter of doing too little: too few troops engaged, too few foreigners killed, too few nations bombed, too few societies transformed, too few countries occupied, too few years involved, too few dollars spent. As new conflicts rage across the Middle East, the interventionist caucus' dismal record has become increasingly embarrassing.

The United States must come up with a strategy to deal with many Middle East developments rather than wasting time, energy and resources in senseless political bickering back home like we saw over Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit last week.

None of this stuff -- irritating as each item may be with regard to how the Clintons do things -- is actually important enough to threaten her candidacy. There is nothing, so far at least, that makes for a compelling, specific storyline.